Tuesday, January 22, 2008


Who really has the best interests of working people at heart—Clinton or Obama? In the Democratic debate in South Carolina, Barack charged that while he was working the streets as a community organizer, Hillary was a corporate lawyer on the board of Wal-Mart. Hillary then charged her opponent with representing a Chicago slum lord who later contributed to his campaign.

In the background (but not very deep background), Bill Clinton said that Obama’s statements about his opposition to the war were a “fairy tale.” He also called the Illinois senator a “kid.” Donna Brazile, who once was an advisor o both Bill Clinton and Al Gore, found the former president’s statements about Obama to be racially offensive. It does seem strange for Bill Clinton to call Barack Obama a “kid. Obama is 46 years old, a year older than Clinton was when he became president!

The problem is, too many politicians (including all three of the top Democratic candidates) are lawyers, and lawyers are not trained to seek the truth. They are trained to win—no matter what the cost.

What the country needs at its head is a truth seeker, a scholar, someone like former English professor Dr. Carl Perrin. Perrin will represent working people in a way that none of these lawyers can. If you want to get to the truth, don’t go to a lawyer. A lawyer will twist the facts to make them come out the way he or she wants. A scholar, on the other hand, will dig until he gets as close as he can to the truth.


Anonymous said...

I agree lawyers are scum. The only thing worse than lawyers are college professors. They go on and on and on about nothing until you're bored almost to death.

We don't need no English professor in the White House.


asper said...

Speaking of lawyers, I notice that John Edwards tries to convey a "good ole boy" image by often dressing up a la "You might be a Red Neck" fashion with white shirt, no tie, blue blazer, and jeans.